offensive terms

Sniper and Tactical

And "Driving a gun"

You drive trucks, you shoot guns.

Stick? You use a stick to beat rugs.........never seen anyone beat a rug with a rifle.
 
BT, with regard to the things people kill others with, about 12 miles from my home a meth-head stalker murdered two sisters using a stick and some sort of fabric. (Edit: this happened last week.)

IE, he surprised one, and bludgeoned then strangled her while her sister (his intended sexual victim) slept.

He then bludgeoned and strangled the sleeping woman. (Edit: According to the police, he admitted to attempting to have sex with the corpse, but said he couldn't manage it. Meth, maybe, or maybe self-revulsion finally kicking in, who knows?)

In this case, a gun would not have done the sisters much good, as they were caught unaware.

A dog, or dogs, to alert them, plus a gun, could have made all the difference in the world.

Luckily, especially since I'm in the sandbox, my wife has both dogs and a gun or two. Now, if I could only get her to start carrying... she's a nurse, she's attractive, and she works at a hospital (most of which, including hers, have meth clinics). We haven't had any stalker issues, for which I'm grateful, but that is a concern of mine, particularly due to the meth clinic.
 
MLeake

Convince her to carry something, if only spray, if she doesn't already. My wife won't carry anything either. I think spray would be best for my wife because I doubt she could shoot anybody in public. At home it's a different story. Convince her!
 
Darren007 said:
I don't find the terms offensive but like so many others have mentioned, I cringe every time someone in the media says "high powered assault rifle" or "military style assault rifle."
Click to expand...
I've always wondered about that. If there are high-powered assault rifles, then there must also be low-powered assault rifles, otherwise there would be no need for the qualifier. So why is it that we never seem to hear about anyone using one of the low-power assault rifles?

Likewise the "military style" assault rifles. If it's necessary to point out that THIS crime was committed with a military style assault rifle, it stands to reason that there must be some non-military style assault rifles out there and the author/speaker needed to clarify which type he/she was speaking/writing about. I suppose we could argue (amongst ourselves, of course) that a Ruger Mini-14 is a non-military style assault rifle -- except that it is styled after the military M14. M1 carbine? Oops, that WAS military. SKS? Ditto. So ... just what and where ARE the "non military style" assault rifles that it's so crucial to differentiate "military style" assault rifles from?





Or is it just possible that "the media" use these adjectives to make the firearm in question sound scarier and more deadly? After all, what could possibly be scarier than an "assault" rifle? Why ... a high-powered, military style assault rifle, of course.
 
BlueTrain said:
If someone were shooting at you with an AR-15, would you be happy that it wasn't fully automatic? Would you even know?
Click to expand...
Does it count if I was shot at with an AK-47 while I was holding an M16?

I assure you, we knew the difference between full-auto and semi-auto ... both ways, incoming and outgoing.
 
Or is it just possible that "the media" use these adjectives to make the firearm in question sound scarier and more deadly? After all, what could possibly be scarier than an "assault" rifle? Why ... a high-powered, military style assault rifle, of course.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Sensationalism makes the story more exciting - whether describing the guns of a bad guy, the razor sharp teeth of a bear that attacks a person (no bear has razor sharp teeth, BTW), or the terrible sound of shearing metal when a plane is crashing, the sound of a dying plane, the jagged metal edges tearing open anybody they contacted. Regardless of the type of ammo use, it is always especially deadly.

I have never understood why absolutely amazing stories need to be sensationalized, but it isn't done just in the media.
 
Last edited:
you're joking, right? gun safety should be paramount for anyone considering obtaining a firearm.
Click to expand...

No. I'm not joking. Mandated gun safety is offensive to me. Learning how to handle firearms correctly is one thing. Politicians using "gun safety" as a bar to owning/shooting firearms is offensive to me.
 
Both sides use sensationalism, even in this thread.

There is such a thing as a high-powered assault rifle, although you can argue whether or not an M16 is such a thing. It doesn't fire a pistol round and it's centerfire. Of course Elmer Keith called the .30-06 "little" and the .357 magnum suitable for people with small or weak hands.

Would a .50 caliber AR-15 be high-powered or merely higher powered?
 
Mandated gun safety is offensive to me. Learning how to handle firearms correctly is one thing. Politicians using "gun safety" as a bar to owning/shooting firearms is offensive to me.
Click to expand...

the last time I checked there was no mandate on firearm safety, unless of course you count the DNR which makes youngsters take a firearms safety course. I voluntarily took my firearms safety course through the DNR. As an adult I didn't have to but I chose to.

if there's one thing i've learned it's that there are two types of gun owners, the ones who take the common sense approach to gun safety and those that don't. this country has its fair share of idiot gun owners who are a danger to society because they don't know the etiquette of gun safety.
 
As mentioned, Colt and other manufacturer's described their revolvers at various times as revolving pistols.

Then, in the 1890s, with the new techology, you started to see semi-automatic pistol show up in the advertising.

The split seems to have started happening not long after that.

As others have mentioned, both revolvers and semi-automatics are pistols.

But not all pistols are either semi-automatics or revolvers.
 
The .45 Colt/.45 Long Colt debate has always amused me quite a bit.

You'll often see brains and smoke squirting out the ears of someone who takes offense with the Long Colt nomenclature, but they smile blandly and chatter on when talking about the 9mm Luger, which everyone knows is nothing more than a cheap, tawdry, incorrect name for the 9mm Parabellum.

Cartridge nomenclature has ALWAYS been highly flexible and elastic.
 
I have a customer who is getting ready to buy his first gun. He asked what I shoot. I shoot a 9mm 1911 mostly. He said a Glock. I said no its a 1911. He said, i thought it was a 9mm. I said it is, but its not a Glock.
Amazing how easily people are confused. Good part is that one more has been educated.
Somehow Glock is to 9mm like Kleenex is to tissue.
 
the problem i'm having right now is the overall tone of the gun debate on the various gun forums I visit, including this one. In the wake of the Aurora, Colorado shooting all i'm reading are posts about the anti-gun advocates, incorrect terminology used by the "liberal" media and whether or not someone with a ccw could've saved lives (total BS imo). In my eyes the focus should be on the victims of this tragedy and how fellow gun owners can educate the public about firearms and repair the damage that's been done. Instead it's all about 'my constitutional right to bear arms,' which states have more gun violence and why an AR-15 isn't considered an assault rifle.
 
the problem i'm having right now is the overall tone of the gun debate on the various gun forums I visit, including this one. In the wake of the Aurora, Colorado shooting all i'm reading are posts about the anti-gun advocates, incorrect terminology used by the "liberal" media and whether or not someone with a ccw could've saved lives (total BS imo). In my eyes the focus should be on the victims of this tragedy and how fellow gun owners can educate the public about firearms and repair the damage that's been done. Instead it's all about 'my constitutional right to bear arms,' which states have more gun violence and why an AR-15 isn't considered an assault rifle
Click to expand...
I dont think anyone is trying to downplay the horrible tragedy that took place. The fact is that many would like to see the 2nd go away and they will use this tragedy to as well as the one in FL to there advantage.
 
Let us not go down the conservative/liberal path or we shut. Note the thread about O'Reilly and recall the GOP folks happily supporting the AWB or its renewal.

Thus, we discuss pro and anti gun folk. HINT.
 
BlueTrain said:
Would a .50 caliber AR-15 be high-powered or merely higher powered?
Click to expand...
Well, that sort of depends, doesn't it? .50 caliber covers a lot of turf. Are you talking about the .50GI cartridge that was developed by Guncrafters Industries as a pistol round for the 1911 platform? Or perhaps a .50 BMG?
 
I mean the ones that the AR-15 "platform" has actually been produced in, and also .45. You are attempting to avoid the question. You know what we're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top